as a lawyer its insulting. Lets assume everything they say is accurate. What law was broken? A violation of the Rooney rule is not a cause of action in a private lawsuit. That's a grievance with him and the league.
as a lawyer its insulting. Lets assume everything they say is accurate. What law was broken? A violation of the Rooney rule is not a cause of action in a private lawsuit. That's a grievance with him and the league.
Not a lawyer here so genuinely asking:
The Rooney Rule is not a statute under any state law, but wouldn't there be a cause of action for something like fraud if you work in an organization which purports to have certain work standards and/or advancement policies which it does not actually follow?
the league was in the crosshairs for asking draft prospects if they were gay? Derrius Guice is the one who comes to mind who outed the league for getting asked about it during the combine.
that was also a potential violation of federal law. not to mention state and municipal law where the NFL operates.
The goal it has in mind is absolutely a noble one. And one worthy of continuing to try and find solutions for.
But, it's also perfectly reasonable, and not at all racist, that the NYG ran an above-board GM search (abiding the Rooney rules in that process, by the way), and once that GM hire was complete, would quickly move on to hire a head coach that was a) available, b) had an existing relationship with said new GM, and c) was pretty clearly a top candidate for at least one other team.
Rules structure the way the Rooney Rules are structured lend themselves quite well to "going through the motions". And simply going through those motions when there is a perfectly logical and time-sensitive externality in play, does not make one a racist.
as a lawyer its insulting. Lets assume everything they say is accurate. What law was broken? A violation of the Rooney rule is not a cause of action in a private lawsuit. That's a grievance with him and the league.
I wouldn't be cavalier about the allegations in the lawsuit.
Unfair hiring practices
An owner(s) perpetuating a fraud
for starters, can have civil consequences at a minimum, and could get the DOJ and Congress involved.
And I don't think the Giants are in one bit of trouble so far.
But the league... I dunno... could be costly.
the silliest thing about all this is the nyg would have interviewed
that would indicate the Giants are in legal trouble. if the only evidence is Belichick's text messages, then the Giants will be out of this lawsuit on a motion to dismiss.
that being said, let's assume that what Belichick said is true, and that Flores can prove the Giants made the decision before interviewing him (good luck). not only would that be a violation of the Rooney Rule (league penalty), but it would show that the Giants potentially discriminated against Flores based on his race, which is a violation of federal, state, and municipal law where the NFL and the Giants operate.
now, as Flores' attorney, you say to yourself, how do I gain even more leverage in my lawsuit? by making it about more than one team. so it's not just the Giants and their alleged sham interview to satisfy their diversity & inclusion checkbox. it's the Dolphins too, who never gave my client a chance. it's the Broncos who also did a sham interview, etc. that takes you from violation of Rooney Rule + federal law into potential class action territory.
however, as other astute BBI lawyers have pointed out, the class of potential litigants (assuming one forms) will not be similar enough to be certified as a class, given the unique experiences they each had with teams. NFL will settle with Flores, but his career is toast.
whether this effectuates any real change or not... we shall see.
RE: the silliest thing about all this is the nyg would have interviewed
Totally agree. I never thought they were interviewing him because of the Rooney Rule. I thought Mara was sold on him and that's why he got the interview. Isn't that what the Giants statement to this is kind of saying?
Totally agree. I never thought they were interviewing him because of the Rooney Rule. I thought Mara was sold on him and that's why he got the interview. Isn't that what the Giants statement to this is kind of saying?
yes. as do the text messages flores released. "come in and win this job". it didn't happen and the obvious reason is simply that Schoen preferred the guy he knew. but there's nothing else to it.
thats why i think belicheck got his news from someone on the schoen side (parcells). mara clearly had significant interest in flores.
it's pretty remarkable how many of the nyg beat writers wrote at length about how much mara wanted flores but now seem to not be loudly restated their own reporting.
Flores was not need to satisfy the Rooney rule.
They had genuine interest and he is burning down his whole world because he is pissed off.
He would have been smart to go after Miami and leave Denver and the Giants out of this.
you are competing for a job with another highly qualified candidate.
Can you imagine the CEO or the VP of whatever division you're trying to join sending you a text message - before you have the job - telling you that he hopes that you come in and win the job?
It's extremely unprofessional to have those types of communications with people who don't work for you yet. It allows them to draw all kinds of conclusions about your true motivations - whether they are right or not.
Now imagine discovery, in which every text message, email, phone call on this subject can be picked apart and analyzed.
Flores was not need to satisfy the Rooney rule.
They had genuine interest and he is burning down his whole world because he is pissed off.
He would have been smart to go after Miami and leave Denver and the Giants out of this.
The requirement is 2 external interviews, Flores was #2.
They said Mara told Flores “youre the guy I want”
They acknowledge the interview delay was b/c of the GM search
Flores thought about not going to the interview after the BB text. Instead he went to prove he was the better candidate
I also believe, one of, if not both lawyers grew up with Flores
Carton asked what their cut was and they didn’t want to answer “mr Flores has not written a check to us”
you are competing for a job with another highly qualified candidate.
Can you imagine the CEO or the VP of whatever division you're trying to join sending you a text message - before you have the job - telling you that he hopes that you come in and win the job?
It's extremely unprofessional to have those types of communications with people who don't work for you yet. It allows them to draw all kinds of conclusions about your true motivations - whether they are right or not.
Now imagine discovery, in which every text message, email, phone call on this subject can be picked apart and analyzed.
Any way you slice it, it's bad.
Well how about being highly qualified for a recent highly significant position that you can't even throw your hat into being considered for? What do you call that?
Flores was not need to satisfy the Rooney rule.
They had genuine interest and he is burning down his whole world because he is pissed off.
He would have been smart to go after Miami and leave Denver and the Giants out of this.
This would not have the same weight and attention if he went after the Dolphins. For him to sue the league, he needs to show a pattern of behavior across teams. That is why the Giants and Broncos episodes are included.
I'm more of a criminal law guy but the word I keep thinking of from
is bringing someone in for an interview and not hiring them, even if they effectively have their minds made up going in, discriminating against someone based on race? That is completely and utterly absurd. It seems clear Flores' claim is they brought him in as a token and the interview was a sham. Simple logic here... that is not the same as saying the Giants refused to interview/hire anyone based on race. They wanted a candidate, the league requires minority candidates to be interviewed, worst case here is a team going through the motions. Again, not the same as refusing to consider a minority candidate. If you flip the Brians, there's obviously not a problem or uproar. Borderline crappy thing to do to the second candidate, but maybe the team just wants to turn over every stone?
Some people just want everything to be of nefarious intent and are drawn to stories like this. They can't help themselves.
you are competing for a job with another highly qualified candidate.
Can you imagine the CEO or the VP of whatever division you're trying to join sending you a text message - before you have the job - telling you that he hopes that you come in and win the job?
It's extremely unprofessional to have those types of communications with people who don't work for you yet. It allows them to draw all kinds of conclusions about your true motivations - whether they are right or not.
Now imagine discovery, in which every text message, email, phone call on this subject can be picked apart and analyzed.
Any way you slice it, it's bad.
It is not against the law to have decided who you want to hire while still interviewing candidates. In fact, it is quite common to decide, but continue interviewing to see if anyone changes your mind.
Now, if Flores can prove that they had made up their mind before he interviewed because of his race that's a different story. But that will be very difficult to substantiate absent a smoking gun. Even the Giants aren't dumb enough to leave a trail of evidence substantiating something like that.
Also, proving discrimination on the basis of race under federal law requires showing either disparate treatment or disparate impact. Both are exceedingly hard to prove as they require showing some sort of intent to discriminate or that excluding the protected class was the intended result. Unless Flores' legal team is holding back evidence, their complaint will not withstand a motion to dismiss.
Is he suing because the Giants didn't hire him? He was a head coach
He would have had a better (more sympathetic) argument if he went after the Phins for firing him and paying him to lose games. He could have couched that in the same Black History Month narrative that he is using now.
but to go after the Giants and others claiming he was unfairly not hired. I think he loses alot of ppl there and hurts his long term prospects of coaching in the NFL again.
i truly believe the Giants interviewed him in good faith and had a faction of the group that may have favored him, so this idea that he was done wrong by the Giants just doesn't wash with me.
Also, proving discrimination on the basis of race under federal law requires showing either disparate treatment or disparate impact. Both are exceedingly hard to prove as they require showing some sort of intent to discriminate or that excluding the protected class was the intended result. Unless Flores' legal team is holding back evidence, their complaint will not withstand a motion to dismiss.
Disparate treatment - giving a white coach a real shot and giving a black coach a token interview that was meaningless.
Disparate impact - not a single black head coach in over 100 years of the franchise.
it's not exactly difficult to see how the argument against the Giants would play out.
I don't think we have seen anything yet that would implicate the Giants in a way where Flores would be able to prove racial discrimination.
But assuming the smoking gun exists - do NOT put it past this clown show franchise for executives to be texting out of turn - the argument to make on racial discrimination sort of falls into place.
that would indicate the Giants are in legal trouble. if the only evidence is Belichick's text messages, then the Giants will be out of this lawsuit on a motion to dismiss.
that being said, let's assume that what Belichick said is true, and that Flores can prove the Giants made the decision before interviewing him (good luck). not only would that be a violation of the Rooney Rule (league penalty), but it would show that the Giants potentially discriminated against Flores based on his race, which is a violation of federal, state, and municipal law where the NFL and the Giants operate.
now, as Flores' attorney, you say to yourself, how do I gain even more leverage in my lawsuit? by making it about more than one team. so it's not just the Giants and their alleged sham interview to satisfy their diversity & inclusion checkbox. it's the Dolphins too, who never gave my client a chance. it's the Broncos who also did a sham interview, etc. that takes you from violation of Rooney Rule + federal law into potential class action territory.
however, as other astute BBI lawyers have pointed out, the class of potential litigants (assuming one forms) will not be similar enough to be certified as a class, given the unique experiences they each had with teams. NFL will settle with Flores, but his career is toast.
whether this effectuates any real change or not... we shall see.
I'm sorry, but how would that demonstrate that the Giants discriminated against him because of his race? Maybe they wanted a HC who had been working with the new GM for 4 years. On an individual team basis, that dog don't hunt - they have a better chance using statistics to show the NFL's Rooney Rule is defective. But is a defectively worded rule illegal?
Also, proving discrimination on the basis of race under federal law requires showing either disparate treatment or disparate impact. Both are exceedingly hard to prove as they require showing some sort of intent to discriminate or that excluding the protected class was the intended result. Unless Flores' legal team is holding back evidence, their complaint will not withstand a motion to dismiss.
Disparate treatment - giving a white coach a real shot and giving a black coach a token interview that was meaningless.
Disparate impact - not a single black head coach in over 100 years of the franchise.
it's not exactly difficult to see how the argument against the Giants would play out.
Right, I'm not saying it's impossible to prove. But it's exceedingly unlikely.
Also, disparate treatment requires proof of motive and intent. Not to get too in the weeds, but even if Flores can make a prima fascia case that he was rejected because of race that doesn't end the case. The Giants then get a chance to articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason they chose the other candidate. The only way to overcome that would be for Flores to prove this legitimate, non-discriminatory reason was pretext. Long story short, it's a heavy burden that Flores will need more than a few vague text messages from outside the organization to prove.
Re: disparate impact, it's not enough to just say "well they never hire black coaches." Disproportionate number of black head coaches hired by the giants (or in this case none) isn't enough to prove disparate impact. You must prove that there was a system setup that created standards unmeetable for black candidates, that excluding black candidates was the intended result of the standards set and that the the goal of creating the standards was to eliminate black candidates from getting hired. Right now, they don't come close to even meeting an initial burden of proof.
as a lawyer its insulting. Lets assume everything they say is accurate. What law was broken? A violation of the Rooney rule is not a cause of action in a private lawsuit. That's a grievance with him and the league.
I wouldn't be cavalier about the allegations in the lawsuit.
Unfair hiring practices
An owner(s) perpetuating a fraud
for starters, can have civil consequences at a minimum, and could get the DOJ and Congress involved.
And I don't think the Giants are in one bit of trouble so far.
But the league... I dunno... could be costly.
With all sincerity, I have no doubt that you are likely excellent at what you do, but it is clear that you are most definitely not an attorney.
The point isn’t about taking the allegations seriously or not.
The point is that even if they were completely accurate they arguably don’t constitute a violation of the cited statutes as a matter of law.
Laws render unlawful specific acts, and have no application to others, no matter how offensive or unreasonable those other acts may seem.
If the acts alleged don’t fit in the box, the lawsuit cannot success.
RE: RE: Mara wanted flores thats not the argument lol
The suit is based on the fact the job was already offered to someone else before his interview.. both can be true
That's not a violation of federal law though. That's an issue w/r/t the Rooney Rule.
I agree with you. If the Giants violated the rooney rule, that is one thing. Proving there was racism involved is almost impossible. Regardless, Giants can claim they liked Flores and didn't have a racist bone in their body, while also being incompetent during the process. Both things can be true.
Also, proving discrimination on the basis of race under federal law requires showing either disparate treatment or disparate impact. Both are exceedingly hard to prove as they require showing some sort of intent to discriminate or that excluding the protected class was the intended result. Unless Flores' legal team is holding back evidence, their complaint will not withstand a motion to dismiss.
Disparate treatment - giving a white coach a real shot and giving a black coach a token interview that was meaningless.
Disparate impact - not a single black head coach in over 100 years of the franchise.
it's not exactly difficult to see how the argument against the Giants would play out.
Right, I'm not saying it's impossible to prove. But it's exceedingly unlikely.
Also, disparate treatment requires proof of motive and intent. Not to get too in the weeds, but even if Flores can make a prima fascia case that he was rejected because of race that doesn't end the case. The Giants then get a chance to articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason they chose the other candidate. The only way to overcome that would be for Flores to prove this legitimate, non-discriminatory reason was pretext. Long story short, it's a heavy burden that Flores will need more than a few vague text messages from outside the organization to prove.
Re: disparate impact, it's not enough to just say "well they never hire black coaches." Disproportionate number of black head coaches hired by the giants (or in this case none) isn't enough to prove disparate impact. You must prove that there was a system setup that created standards unmeetable for black candidates, that excluding black candidates was the intended result of the standards set and that the the goal of creating the standards was to eliminate black candidates from getting hired. Right now, they don't come close to even meeting an initial burden of proof.
This.
When all of the media circus and PR campaigns settle down, and the fact of this lawsuit’s existing is old news, these claims as stated currently are in my legal opinion very unlike to succeed.
In fact, that’s almost certainly why the case was filed at this particular time to cause maximum damage to the league, and to capitalize on the preexisting Super Bowl carnival.
And it’s also in my opinion why the lawyers are against standard practice and good legal judgment parading Flores all over the TV and radio, because their leverage is all in the optics, not the law.
that violation of Title VII are difficult to prove - you are 100% correct, but you are also sort of missing the point.
if the Giants find themselves at the stage of this lawsuit where they have to overcome the burden that Flores was discriminated against - by articulating a legitimate, non discriminatory reason - as LW pointed out - they have already lost. that would mean that Flores and his attorneys will get to do discovery.
i can’t be the only one who is terrified of what they would find.
that violation of Title VII are difficult to prove - you are 100% correct, but you are also sort of missing the point.
if the Giants find themselves at the stage of this lawsuit where they have to overcome the burden that Flores was discriminated against - by articulating a legitimate, non discriminatory reason - as LW pointed out - they have already lost. that would mean that Flores and his attorneys will get to do discovery.
i can’t be the only one who is terrified of what they would find.
Discovery is mutual assured destruction, though. All of the crap that led to Flores’ firing woukd come out as well.
Moreover, notwithstanding the horrible things that can come from discovery, the league has demonstrated on two major recent occasions that it will run those risks rather than cave early (see: STL relocation and Wash cases.
that violation of Title VII are difficult to prove - you are 100% correct, but you are also sort of missing the point.
if the Giants find themselves at the stage of this lawsuit where they have to overcome the burden that Flores was discriminated against - by articulating a legitimate, non discriminatory reason - as LW pointed out - they have already lost. that would mean that Flores and his attorneys will get to do discovery.
i can’t be the only one who is terrified of what they would find.
Discovery is mutual assured destruction, though. All of the crap that led to Flores’ firing woukd come out as well.
Moreover, notwithstanding the horrible things that can come from discovery, the league has demonstrated on two major recent occasions that it will run those risks rather than cave early (see: STL relocation and Wash cases.
And it’s not even assured that the case will even get to discovery.
Seems that to do so that the court would have to conclude that literal compliance with a private organization’s rules nevertheless constituted unlawful discrimination. That’s by no means an easy sell.
you are competing for a job with another highly qualified candidate.
Can you imagine the CEO or the VP of whatever division you're trying to join sending you a text message - before you have the job - telling you that he hopes that you come in and win the job?
It's extremely unprofessional to have those types of communications with people who don't work for you yet. It allows them to draw all kinds of conclusions about your true motivations - whether they are right or not.
Now imagine discovery, in which every text message, email, phone call on this subject can be picked apart and analyzed.
Any way you slice it, it's bad.
How about the candidate not informing the club of his pending litigation. That’s real professional.
weren't serious about his candidacy they would never have had him in the building, Rooney Rule or not. Other than angling for a settlement I have no idea what his game is here.
Also, proving discrimination on the basis of race under federal law requires showing either disparate treatment or disparate impact. Both are exceedingly hard to prove as they require showing some sort of intent to discriminate or that excluding the protected class was the intended result. Unless Flores' legal team is holding back evidence, their complaint will not withstand a motion to dismiss.
Disparate treatment - giving a white coach a real shot and giving a black coach a token interview that was meaningless.
Disparate impact - not a single black head coach in over 100 years of the franchise.
it's not exactly difficult to see how the argument against the Giants would play out.
Jake, I can see this point and you've brought up some interesting things in this thread, but when we talk about "not a single black head coach" how much of a factor does Jerry Reese's tenure play into any potential counterargument. Even though the coach is the more visible figure on television, the general manager is the top football position in the organization. I'm just trying to wrap my head around how they're going to spin this in their favor when all signs point to the Giants actually being genuine in their interest towards Flores and an organizational history that does lack a Black head coach but certainly not in other very important positions.
Also, proving discrimination on the basis of race under federal law requires showing either disparate treatment or disparate impact. Both are exceedingly hard to prove as they require showing some sort of intent to discriminate or that excluding the protected class was the intended result. Unless Flores' legal team is holding back evidence, their complaint will not withstand a motion to dismiss.
Disparate treatment - giving a white coach a real shot and giving a black coach a token interview that was meaningless.
Disparate impact - not a single black head coach in over 100 years of the franchise.
it's not exactly difficult to see how the argument against the Giants would play out.
Presumably they gave Quinn and the Bengals OC the same lack of shot. Nothing to do with Flores being black.
Imagine that
"Rooney Rule" is not the only basis for a lawsuit against a team or the league.
Not a lawyer here so genuinely asking:
The Rooney Rule is not a statute under any state law, but wouldn't there be a cause of action for something like fraud if you work in an organization which purports to have certain work standards and/or advancement policies which it does not actually follow?
that was also a potential violation of federal law. not to mention state and municipal law where the NFL operates.
this is like that, but much worse.
The goal it has in mind is absolutely a noble one. And one worthy of continuing to try and find solutions for.
But, it's also perfectly reasonable, and not at all racist, that the NYG ran an above-board GM search (abiding the Rooney rules in that process, by the way), and once that GM hire was complete, would quickly move on to hire a head coach that was a) available, b) had an existing relationship with said new GM, and c) was pretty clearly a top candidate for at least one other team.
Rules structure the way the Rooney Rules are structured lend themselves quite well to "going through the motions". And simply going through those motions when there is a perfectly logical and time-sensitive externality in play, does not make one a racist.
I wouldn't be cavalier about the allegations in the lawsuit.
Unfair hiring practices
An owner(s) perpetuating a fraud
for starters, can have civil consequences at a minimum, and could get the DOJ and Congress involved.
And I don't think the Giants are in one bit of trouble so far.
But the league... I dunno... could be costly.
"Rooney Rule" is not the only basis for a lawsuit against a team or the league.
Can you say how what happened to Flores is in violation of the Title VII?
It is one thing to have a token interview (this may in fact be true) but as of right now I see no merit to what you are suggesting.
"Title VII prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin"
Link - ( New Window )
Link - ( New Window )
that being said, let's assume that what Belichick said is true, and that Flores can prove the Giants made the decision before interviewing him (good luck). not only would that be a violation of the Rooney Rule (league penalty), but it would show that the Giants potentially discriminated against Flores based on his race, which is a violation of federal, state, and municipal law where the NFL and the Giants operate.
now, as Flores' attorney, you say to yourself, how do I gain even more leverage in my lawsuit? by making it about more than one team. so it's not just the Giants and their alleged sham interview to satisfy their diversity & inclusion checkbox. it's the Dolphins too, who never gave my client a chance. it's the Broncos who also did a sham interview, etc. that takes you from violation of Rooney Rule + federal law into potential class action territory.
however, as other astute BBI lawyers have pointed out, the class of potential litigants (assuming one forms) will not be similar enough to be certified as a class, given the unique experiences they each had with teams. NFL will settle with Flores, but his career is toast.
whether this effectuates any real change or not... we shall see.
Totally agree. I never thought they were interviewing him because of the Rooney Rule. I thought Mara was sold on him and that's why he got the interview. Isn't that what the Giants statement to this is kind of saying?
Shocker.
It is one thing to have a token interview (this may in fact be true) but as of right now I see no merit to what you are suggesting.
"Title VII prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin"
Not yet. But the allegations could be enough to get you to discovery. And then the shit may truly hit the fan.
A wise man once said - it can always get worse. I doubted him for many years.
I no longer do.
Quote:
flores even without the rooney rule.
Totally agree. I never thought they were interviewing him because of the Rooney Rule. I thought Mara was sold on him and that's why he got the interview. Isn't that what the Giants statement to this is kind of saying?
yes. as do the text messages flores released. "come in and win this job". it didn't happen and the obvious reason is simply that Schoen preferred the guy he knew. but there's nothing else to it.
thats why i think belicheck got his news from someone on the schoen side (parcells). mara clearly had significant interest in flores.
it's pretty remarkable how many of the nyg beat writers wrote at length about how much mara wanted flores but now seem to not be loudly restated their own reporting.
They had genuine interest and he is burning down his whole world because he is pissed off.
He would have been smart to go after Miami and leave Denver and the Giants out of this.
Can you imagine the CEO or the VP of whatever division you're trying to join sending you a text message - before you have the job - telling you that he hopes that you come in and win the job?
It's extremely unprofessional to have those types of communications with people who don't work for you yet. It allows them to draw all kinds of conclusions about your true motivations - whether they are right or not.
Now imagine discovery, in which every text message, email, phone call on this subject can be picked apart and analyzed.
Any way you slice it, it's bad.
They had genuine interest and he is burning down his whole world because he is pissed off.
He would have been smart to go after Miami and leave Denver and the Giants out of this.
The requirement is 2 external interviews, Flores was #2.
They said Mara told Flores “youre the guy I want”
They acknowledge the interview delay was b/c of the GM search
Flores thought about not going to the interview after the BB text. Instead he went to prove he was the better candidate
I also believe, one of, if not both lawyers grew up with Flores
Carton asked what their cut was and they didn’t want to answer “mr Flores has not written a check to us”
Can you imagine the CEO or the VP of whatever division you're trying to join sending you a text message - before you have the job - telling you that he hopes that you come in and win the job?
It's extremely unprofessional to have those types of communications with people who don't work for you yet. It allows them to draw all kinds of conclusions about your true motivations - whether they are right or not.
Now imagine discovery, in which every text message, email, phone call on this subject can be picked apart and analyzed.
Any way you slice it, it's bad.
Well how about being highly qualified for a recent highly significant position that you can't even throw your hat into being considered for? What do you call that?
They had genuine interest and he is burning down his whole world because he is pissed off.
He would have been smart to go after Miami and leave Denver and the Giants out of this.
This would not have the same weight and attention if he went after the Dolphins. For him to sue the league, he needs to show a pattern of behavior across teams. That is why the Giants and Broncos episodes are included.
Some people just want everything to be of nefarious intent and are drawn to stories like this. They can't help themselves.
Link - ( New Window )
Link - ( New Window )
That is pretty funny. They may need to establish a rule themselves.
Can you imagine the CEO or the VP of whatever division you're trying to join sending you a text message - before you have the job - telling you that he hopes that you come in and win the job?
It's extremely unprofessional to have those types of communications with people who don't work for you yet. It allows them to draw all kinds of conclusions about your true motivations - whether they are right or not.
Now imagine discovery, in which every text message, email, phone call on this subject can be picked apart and analyzed.
Any way you slice it, it's bad.
It is not against the law to have decided who you want to hire while still interviewing candidates. In fact, it is quite common to decide, but continue interviewing to see if anyone changes your mind.
Now, if Flores can prove that they had made up their mind before he interviewed because of his race that's a different story. But that will be very difficult to substantiate absent a smoking gun. Even the Giants aren't dumb enough to leave a trail of evidence substantiating something like that.
Also, proving discrimination on the basis of race under federal law requires showing either disparate treatment or disparate impact. Both are exceedingly hard to prove as they require showing some sort of intent to discriminate or that excluding the protected class was the intended result. Unless Flores' legal team is holding back evidence, their complaint will not withstand a motion to dismiss.
He would have had a better (more sympathetic) argument if he went after the Phins for firing him and paying him to lose games. He could have couched that in the same Black History Month narrative that he is using now.
but to go after the Giants and others claiming he was unfairly not hired. I think he loses alot of ppl there and hurts his long term prospects of coaching in the NFL again.
i truly believe the Giants interviewed him in good faith and had a faction of the group that may have favored him, so this idea that he was done wrong by the Giants just doesn't wash with me.
They did nothing to really contest the validity of their evidence and timelines.
Link - ( New Window )
Link - ( New Window )
the memes write themeselevs
Link - ( New Window )
I would say he’s probably going to have to now regardless
Disparate treatment - giving a white coach a real shot and giving a black coach a token interview that was meaningless.
Disparate impact - not a single black head coach in over 100 years of the franchise.
it's not exactly difficult to see how the argument against the Giants would play out.
But assuming the smoking gun exists - do NOT put it past this clown show franchise for executives to be texting out of turn - the argument to make on racial discrimination sort of falls into place.
that being said, let's assume that what Belichick said is true, and that Flores can prove the Giants made the decision before interviewing him (good luck). not only would that be a violation of the Rooney Rule (league penalty), but it would show that the Giants potentially discriminated against Flores based on his race, which is a violation of federal, state, and municipal law where the NFL and the Giants operate.
now, as Flores' attorney, you say to yourself, how do I gain even more leverage in my lawsuit? by making it about more than one team. so it's not just the Giants and their alleged sham interview to satisfy their diversity & inclusion checkbox. it's the Dolphins too, who never gave my client a chance. it's the Broncos who also did a sham interview, etc. that takes you from violation of Rooney Rule + federal law into potential class action territory.
however, as other astute BBI lawyers have pointed out, the class of potential litigants (assuming one forms) will not be similar enough to be certified as a class, given the unique experiences they each had with teams. NFL will settle with Flores, but his career is toast.
whether this effectuates any real change or not... we shall see.
I'm sorry, but how would that demonstrate that the Giants discriminated against him because of his race? Maybe they wanted a HC who had been working with the new GM for 4 years. On an individual team basis, that dog don't hunt - they have a better chance using statistics to show the NFL's Rooney Rule is defective. But is a defectively worded rule illegal?
Quote:
from NYC no less
Link - ( New Window )
That law firm has 6 partners. How big a splash can they make?
if Flores can prove that a white coach got a "real" interview, and a black coach got a fake one, that would be enough.
big "if" though.
Team Wigdor - ( New Window )
Quote:
Also, proving discrimination on the basis of race under federal law requires showing either disparate treatment or disparate impact. Both are exceedingly hard to prove as they require showing some sort of intent to discriminate or that excluding the protected class was the intended result. Unless Flores' legal team is holding back evidence, their complaint will not withstand a motion to dismiss.
Disparate treatment - giving a white coach a real shot and giving a black coach a token interview that was meaningless.
Disparate impact - not a single black head coach in over 100 years of the franchise.
it's not exactly difficult to see how the argument against the Giants would play out.
Right, I'm not saying it's impossible to prove. But it's exceedingly unlikely.
Also, disparate treatment requires proof of motive and intent. Not to get too in the weeds, but even if Flores can make a prima fascia case that he was rejected because of race that doesn't end the case. The Giants then get a chance to articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason they chose the other candidate. The only way to overcome that would be for Flores to prove this legitimate, non-discriminatory reason was pretext. Long story short, it's a heavy burden that Flores will need more than a few vague text messages from outside the organization to prove.
Re: disparate impact, it's not enough to just say "well they never hire black coaches." Disproportionate number of black head coaches hired by the giants (or in this case none) isn't enough to prove disparate impact. You must prove that there was a system setup that created standards unmeetable for black candidates, that excluding black candidates was the intended result of the standards set and that the the goal of creating the standards was to eliminate black candidates from getting hired. Right now, they don't come close to even meeting an initial burden of proof.
The suit is based on the fact the job was already offered to someone else before his interview.. both can be true
The suit is based on the fact the job was already offered to someone else before his interview.. both can be true
That's not a violation of federal law though. That's an issue w/r/t the Rooney Rule.
Quote:
as a lawyer its insulting. Lets assume everything they say is accurate. What law was broken? A violation of the Rooney rule is not a cause of action in a private lawsuit. That's a grievance with him and the league.
I wouldn't be cavalier about the allegations in the lawsuit.
Unfair hiring practices
An owner(s) perpetuating a fraud
for starters, can have civil consequences at a minimum, and could get the DOJ and Congress involved.
And I don't think the Giants are in one bit of trouble so far.
But the league... I dunno... could be costly.
With all sincerity, I have no doubt that you are likely excellent at what you do, but it is clear that you are most definitely not an attorney.
The point isn’t about taking the allegations seriously or not.
The point is that even if they were completely accurate they arguably don’t constitute a violation of the cited statutes as a matter of law.
Laws render unlawful specific acts, and have no application to others, no matter how offensive or unreasonable those other acts may seem.
If the acts alleged don’t fit in the box, the lawsuit cannot success.
Quote:
The suit is based on the fact the job was already offered to someone else before his interview.. both can be true
That's not a violation of federal law though. That's an issue w/r/t the Rooney Rule.
I agree with you. If the Giants violated the rooney rule, that is one thing. Proving there was racism involved is almost impossible. Regardless, Giants can claim they liked Flores and didn't have a racist bone in their body, while also being incompetent during the process. Both things can be true.
Quote:
In comment 15590746 LW_Giants said:
Quote:
Also, proving discrimination on the basis of race under federal law requires showing either disparate treatment or disparate impact. Both are exceedingly hard to prove as they require showing some sort of intent to discriminate or that excluding the protected class was the intended result. Unless Flores' legal team is holding back evidence, their complaint will not withstand a motion to dismiss.
Disparate treatment - giving a white coach a real shot and giving a black coach a token interview that was meaningless.
Disparate impact - not a single black head coach in over 100 years of the franchise.
it's not exactly difficult to see how the argument against the Giants would play out.
Right, I'm not saying it's impossible to prove. But it's exceedingly unlikely.
Also, disparate treatment requires proof of motive and intent. Not to get too in the weeds, but even if Flores can make a prima fascia case that he was rejected because of race that doesn't end the case. The Giants then get a chance to articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason they chose the other candidate. The only way to overcome that would be for Flores to prove this legitimate, non-discriminatory reason was pretext. Long story short, it's a heavy burden that Flores will need more than a few vague text messages from outside the organization to prove.
Re: disparate impact, it's not enough to just say "well they never hire black coaches." Disproportionate number of black head coaches hired by the giants (or in this case none) isn't enough to prove disparate impact. You must prove that there was a system setup that created standards unmeetable for black candidates, that excluding black candidates was the intended result of the standards set and that the the goal of creating the standards was to eliminate black candidates from getting hired. Right now, they don't come close to even meeting an initial burden of proof.
This.
When all of the media circus and PR campaigns settle down, and the fact of this lawsuit’s existing is old news, these claims as stated currently are in my legal opinion very unlike to succeed.
In fact, that’s almost certainly why the case was filed at this particular time to cause maximum damage to the league, and to capitalize on the preexisting Super Bowl carnival.
And it’s also in my opinion why the lawyers are against standard practice and good legal judgment parading Flores all over the TV and radio, because their leverage is all in the optics, not the law.
if the Giants find themselves at the stage of this lawsuit where they have to overcome the burden that Flores was discriminated against - by articulating a legitimate, non discriminatory reason - as LW pointed out - they have already lost. that would mean that Flores and his attorneys will get to do discovery.
i can’t be the only one who is terrified of what they would find.
if the Giants find themselves at the stage of this lawsuit where they have to overcome the burden that Flores was discriminated against - by articulating a legitimate, non discriminatory reason - as LW pointed out - they have already lost. that would mean that Flores and his attorneys will get to do discovery.
i can’t be the only one who is terrified of what they would find.
Discovery is mutual assured destruction, though. All of the crap that led to Flores’ firing woukd come out as well.
Moreover, notwithstanding the horrible things that can come from discovery, the league has demonstrated on two major recent occasions that it will run those risks rather than cave early (see: STL relocation and Wash cases.
Quote:
that violation of Title VII are difficult to prove - you are 100% correct, but you are also sort of missing the point.
if the Giants find themselves at the stage of this lawsuit where they have to overcome the burden that Flores was discriminated against - by articulating a legitimate, non discriminatory reason - as LW pointed out - they have already lost. that would mean that Flores and his attorneys will get to do discovery.
i can’t be the only one who is terrified of what they would find.
Discovery is mutual assured destruction, though. All of the crap that led to Flores’ firing woukd come out as well.
Moreover, notwithstanding the horrible things that can come from discovery, the league has demonstrated on two major recent occasions that it will run those risks rather than cave early (see: STL relocation and Wash cases.
And it’s not even assured that the case will even get to discovery.
Seems that to do so that the court would have to conclude that literal compliance with a private organization’s rules nevertheless constituted unlawful discrimination. That’s by no means an easy sell.
Can you imagine the CEO or the VP of whatever division you're trying to join sending you a text message - before you have the job - telling you that he hopes that you come in and win the job?
It's extremely unprofessional to have those types of communications with people who don't work for you yet. It allows them to draw all kinds of conclusions about your true motivations - whether they are right or not.
Now imagine discovery, in which every text message, email, phone call on this subject can be picked apart and analyzed.
Any way you slice it, it's bad.
How about the candidate not informing the club of his pending litigation. That’s real professional.
Shocker.
Way to make this political, asshole.
Quote:
Also, proving discrimination on the basis of race under federal law requires showing either disparate treatment or disparate impact. Both are exceedingly hard to prove as they require showing some sort of intent to discriminate or that excluding the protected class was the intended result. Unless Flores' legal team is holding back evidence, their complaint will not withstand a motion to dismiss.
Disparate treatment - giving a white coach a real shot and giving a black coach a token interview that was meaningless.
Disparate impact - not a single black head coach in over 100 years of the franchise.
it's not exactly difficult to see how the argument against the Giants would play out.
Jake, I can see this point and you've brought up some interesting things in this thread, but when we talk about "not a single black head coach" how much of a factor does Jerry Reese's tenure play into any potential counterargument. Even though the coach is the more visible figure on television, the general manager is the top football position in the organization. I'm just trying to wrap my head around how they're going to spin this in their favor when all signs point to the Giants actually being genuine in their interest towards Flores and an organizational history that does lack a Black head coach but certainly not in other very important positions.
Quote:
Also, proving discrimination on the basis of race under federal law requires showing either disparate treatment or disparate impact. Both are exceedingly hard to prove as they require showing some sort of intent to discriminate or that excluding the protected class was the intended result. Unless Flores' legal team is holding back evidence, their complaint will not withstand a motion to dismiss.
Disparate treatment - giving a white coach a real shot and giving a black coach a token interview that was meaningless.
Disparate impact - not a single black head coach in over 100 years of the franchise.
it's not exactly difficult to see how the argument against the Giants would play out.
Presumably they gave Quinn and the Bengals OC the same lack of shot. Nothing to do with Flores being black.